Natalie's News Notes . . .

E of J Response 11

2009-11-06T16:40:00.001-08:00

What I most appreciate about “Elements of Journalism” is that its message is equally advantageous to citizens and journalists. It’s no secret that public opinion about journalism has been steadily declining since the 80’s and this book provides a framework for why; Writing strong journalism is hard, really hard. For citizens, the value of this book is in providing a framework for what decent journalism looks like and insight on where to look for red flags. Since we know that journalists will fail, it’s up to us as citizens to decipher where we’ll get our news, what we’ll question, how we’ll further investigate for ourselves and ultimately what we’ll do with all of the information. “The elements of journalism are a citizen’s bill of rights,” (249) . . . in a perfect world these rights would be perfectly abided by, but since that’s not the case, it’s important to have a compass by which to judge.

We have the right to expect truthfulness, loyalty, independence, monitoring of power, a public forum, proportionality/engagement but also the responsibility to be active in holding the press accountable. “The marketplace fails if we as citizens are passive, willing to put up with a diminishing product” (253). Since I don’t intend on writing journalism, though I won’t out rule it, I see this charge (to citizens, to myself) as hugely important because we’re part of a chain: citizens keep journalists in check and journalists keep democracy in check.

For citizens, the usefulness of the elements and the need for questioning doesn’t stop at the end of an article. In class we’ve experienced a few situations where both concepts have applied: During our Techmission visit we noticed holes in the verification of the statistics that Andrew was presenting. In Chris’s pursuit to stream the Redskins game we saw how a bit of cross-referencing saved him from a legitimate looking Internet scam.

The bottom line: we’ve got to keep researching, verifying and making sense of it all whether a journalist or citizen.

E of J response 10

2009-10-26T12:00:00.000-07:00

The final chapter of EoJ, “Journalists have a Responsibility to Conscience,” has particular resonance as I’m halfway through the comm. Arts capstone course, Media Ethics and Culture. Professor Cobbey has been challenging us to articulate our personal values and how they affect our ethical standards and moral compass. This chapter shows the importance of getting those standards hashed out and written down because as R&K say, “ . . . there are no laws of journalism, no regulations, no licensing, and no formal self-policing, and since journalism by its nature can be exploitative, a heavy burden rests on the ethics and judgment of the individual journalist” (180).

While R&K aren’t looking at journalism ethics from a Christian perspective, I can’t have an ethics system that doesn’t include Christ. I’m not sure how people who don’t believe in a higher power justify moral decisions. Considering the current state of journalism, they probably don’t. Regardless, R&K have idealized the importance of character in news. I’m thankful that I’m held accountable by something so much bigger than citizens, editors, or my own personal desires.

A value that I’ve been exploring for senior seminar is diversity so I was excited that R&K note diversity as something to strive for. They hit the nail on the head in pointing out that the goal of diversity is not in having a newsroom of multi-racial folks that adhere to a single mentality. Rather, the long-term health of a newsroom depends on its ability to listen and work with the ideas of a complex group of people (190). Diversity in the newsroom helps to avoid stereotypes and understand and speak to the whole community. “ . . . stories should answer our needs as citizens and not just the interests of the players and the political or economic system” (193).

Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky

2009-10-25T09:37:00.000-07:00

After watching part of the documentary “Manufacturing Consent,” it’s clear that two of Noam Chomsky’s priority values include unguarded information transmission and the underdog.

Chomsky argues that the elite media, starting with the New York Times and trickling to local papers, set agendas and create history through the structure and framing of the news. The problem, according to Chomsky, is that media sources are operating as businesses with agendas that work to placate their income suppliers: advertisers. The result: “a picture of the world that satisfies sellers.”

In class we talked about love of money and power as bringing the best of social systems undone. Money and power also undergird Chomsky’s argument. I agree that news sources have lost perspective on the purpose of the news as the foundation of democracy and as a result have forsaken holistic news coverage to remain in the game. This concept has been smacking me in the face. At my internship this week my supervisor laid out some examples of “necessary” back scratching that she’s experienced within Boston’s news outlets. Even though I think Chomsky gives the word extreme a new definition, his argument holds water.

I am skeptical of Chomsky’s thoughts on underdogs, though I think I know where they come from. If Chomsky is accurate in his opening statements that 20 percent of the population make decisions and the other 80 percent hop on the bandwagon, then if the 20 percent are incorrect in their decision making, the whole takes a dive for the worse. But who’s to say that the underdog has it right either?

The take away from this documentary for me has to do with being proactive. Chomsky says “these people wouldn’t operate without apathy.” This brings me back to the book I’ve just read for senior seminar, “Amusing Ourselves to Death,” which explores how we’ve allowed entertainment to consume our ability to think and act. We’ve got to keep questioning and looking at the underlying motives and values of any and every entity whether an individual or a corporation or the media.

E of J response 9 & Eric

2009-10-16T17:14:00.000-07:00

Recently, I’ve gotten to thinking about the factors motivating a journalist. Are they just a bunch of extreme news junkies? Is it an agenda they’re hell bent on promoting? Are they compelled to give a voice to the voiceless? Do they simply love to write? Or, are they just trying to help everyday folks make informed decisions? I’ll bet that every journalist has been motivated by each of these questions at one point or another, and I give them credit for being so resilient in the midst.

We’ve talked about journalism being Biblical. The prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekial in the Old Testament and Luke in the New Testament seem to see the value in getting the researched facts down and giving power to the undermined. But despite my awareness of this, when Eric, editor of the Boston Business Journal, questioned our place as Christians in journalism . . . I didn’t feel confident that I knew the answer.

Perhaps this was because we’d just finished talking about the “reality” that the asshole v. asshole shootings that happen every night in Southie, can’t and don’t get told. Ironic that this weeks chapter in elements should regard demographics and being comprehensive and proportional. R&K liken journalists to cartographers; Both must be complete and proportional in their work. But, journalists seem to have failed somewhere after the large immigrant population of the 70’s integrated into American culture. “We created a map for certain neighborhoods and not others. Those who were unable to navigate where they lived gave up” (167).

The problem of violent communities is a complex issue that I won’t try to attribute or place solely on the news industry. But Eric had some things to say from a journalistic perspective that were unsettling. Basically he said that because the “homicide beat” events are the same, cops are the same and the situation is the same, the journalist writes the same disengaged story. Sometimes it gets printed. In the midst two things almost always happen: the journalist becomes emotionally drained and for the sake of ensuring that there is hospitality from the Police, they write stories and investigate with them in mind.

I sat in class on Monday listening and feeling like someone was punching my chest from the inside. Eric was very aware of the problem, yet he spoke as if he were completely defeated. I hope that it’s not because I’m young and naïve that I care so much. Yes, the victims have families and friends and lives that are actually all very different. But those folks aren’t the only ones who suffer from the lack of investigating and care that doesn’t go into the homicide beat. R&K say, “The newscasts and newspapers that ignored whole communities also created problems for those it did serve . . . it left its audiences poorly informed because so much was left out. This made citizens vulnerable to making poor decisions” (168).

I have to believe that there is a way that these stories can be told and still be a service to the community, the whole community.

E of J response 8

2009-10-12T07:56:00.000-07:00

The daunting thing about journalism, and writing in general, is that there’s no summiting the perfection mountain. Chapter 8 of E of J is a reminder of this as it focuses on journalisms need to be relevant, accessible and engaging without turning into infotainment.

The best way that I know how to do this is by asking myself “so what, who cares, why am I writing this now.” Those questions lead me to links between my writing topic at hand and other current happenings. In the last year or so it seems that some journalists have become lazy in linking any and every topic to the state of the economy—their hope: “to make the significant interesting and the interesting significant” (155).

Though R&K don’t harp on observation time in this chapter, they make a point that is worth repeating because I see it as the ultimate connection between readers and words. “Good journalistic writing is always the result of solid, deep reporting that adds detail and context that holds a piece together . . . good work involves more than attending an event and then sitting down at a keyboard” (150). With speed trumping reporting, stories are often lacking in a thorough understanding of the human element, which can only be relayed through significant time spent.

But characters are VERY important. “Journalists told us they consider character as the key to pulling people into stories. Often this is found in the minor details that make someone human and real” (159). This is what excites me most about reporting and why I know that I should be writing people’s stories: I’ve been given a knack for looking, listening, asking and putting the pieces together.

TOUCH 106.1FM: The Fabric of the Black Community

2009-10-11T19:52:00.000-07:00

Each year, America’s roadways are trudged along on behalf of causes such as cancer, hunger or animal rights. But this April, one man set out on a 547-mile trek from Boston to Washington DC, for a radio station.

Charles Clemons is the founder and producer of TOUCH 106.1 FM radio: the fabric of the black community. His walk was a “walk 4 power,” quite literally. TOUCH is the only 24-hour black radio station in Boston and Clemons has been fighting to increase his listenership by lifting the restrictions of the low power radio act. While he’s still battling legally, last week Clemons discovered the technology for widening his channels bandwidth to provide for more reliable streaming.

For Clemons, TOUCH FM is about far more than music. “I didn’t start this station to make money. I started it as a service,” he said. “There’s so much negative about the black community and TOUCH is part of the solution to make our community whole by starting with charity at home and making it spread.”

The TOUCH mission: “to awaken and empower our nations communities and create a platform for free communication, to spread peace, to truly reunite the human family.”

As a Police officer in the city of Boston prior to his radio career, Clemons is familiar with the despair of the black community. His hope is to expose the community of Dorchester to family-oriented, responsible, profanity-free radio programming.

“TOUCH is trying to say, ‘hey, we’re just as good as anyone else,” said Clemons.

Despite being run solely by volunteers, listeners of TOUCH have appreciated and stood behind TOUCH’s mission to bring renewal. According to Clemons the community has responded very positively to the station. TOUCH has also been the recipient of multiple awards in its three-year existence.

“It’s all possible because of the donated services of plumbers, electricians, carpenters and others who give their time because they support our mission,” said Clemons.

But TOUCH hasn’t been without obstacles. Currently, Clemons is battling the FCC over restrictions on low power FM radio stations. TOUCH has partnered with Promotheus Radio Project, a group that works to “free the airwaves from corporate control.”

“I’ve been visited by the FCC four times and fined $17,000 because of the station,” said Clemons. “In war the first thing they knock out is communication.”

According to Clemons, TOUCH is a step towards the empowerment of the black community and he’s willing to fight for it. “TOUCH 106.1 is more than a radio station—it’s a movement.”

-30-

7News WHDH Boston

2009-10-03T13:54:00.000-07:00

Perhaps it has something to do with graduation being around the next bend that I’m bombarded by the adage, “it’s not what you know in life, it’s who you know in life that matters.” The cynical old cliché ignites my fuse every time I hear it. What about all that it disregards? Like hard work, intelligence, attitude, persistence . . . the list goes on.

In the five minutes that I was able to talk with Christa Delcamp, anchor and reporter at 7News she said something that really struck a chord. “I’m here today because I love the news and I’ve always worked hard at whatever internship or job opportunity I’ve had.”

“Where did you go to school?” I asked in return, getting ready to hear Emerson, BC, maybe even Harvard. But no, she went to a podunk school, Atlantic Union College, 20 minutes from my own hometown. Regardless, on September 28^th, 2009 she was delivering the nightly news for WHDH Channel 7 Boston.

While I was thrilled to watch the nightly news in person and have another glimpse at the many facets of a news station, the take-away of the evening for me had to do with working hard. Mike Williams, the current Station Manager who’s worked at Channel 7 for 40 years, gave an emphatic lecture on what he looks for and desires out of employees. Topping the list was attitude. According to Williams if ones attitude is in check, timeliness, diligence and the rest follow suite. But he wasn’t just about work. He encouraged us to be positive in our mindsets about our passions. “The only limits you have in this business are the ones you place on yourself,” he said. His lecture in conjunction with talking to Delcamp made me rethink that old adage. Part of it is right. It really isn’t “what you know.” It’s what you do with it. The people you meet in the process are a positive side effect, not an “ends” to be looked towards, as far as I’m concerned.

E of J response 7

2009-09-26T13:48:00.000-07:00

Journalism as a public forum began at its most simple stages in marketplaces, taverns and pubs. These gathering places fulfilled the human need to know by providing a means for public criticism and comment. With the onset of technology, the printing press in particular, the pub took second fiddle to the newspaper: “The newspaper was not only part of the community, but in a very concrete way a place for the community to gather and talk” (138). But as R&K explore in chapter seven, with the good of technology has also come the bad, particularly in the way that it’s allowed for laziness in news gathering and reporting.

R&K explore how much of news has become a forum for argument and debate. Talk shows in particular which account for 40% of TV “news” in a given 24-hour span (138). I love that they say, “quite literally, talk is cheap” (140). What R&K mean is that opinion is free, but building a reporting infrastructure and delivering the news requires a lot of grunt work and persistence and is therefore going to be costly.

Mark Bowden states the problem clearly in, The Story Behind the Story. “Work formerly done by reporters and producers is now routinely performed by political operatives and amateur ideologies of one stripe or another, whose goal is not to educate the public but to win.”http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200910/media That’s a scary statement. If true, we're losing the checks of a free press.

As much as I want to blame the news industry for it’s laziness in prizing investigation, I feel frustrated with the general public for being so drawn to drama, rather than the news that helps them make significant decisions as citizens. Maybe the state of journalism is just as much the peoples fault as it is those who are in the news industry. Maybe if we could hold our attention spans long enough to comprehend something aside from Michael Jackson’s death, they’d show us something other than Michael Jackson’s death.

techmission meets Chomsky

2009-09-25T14:01:00.000-07:00

This week we visited the headquarters of the number one Christian social justice website, techmission, located in Dorchester, MA. According to our host Andrew, techmission is aimed at giving a media voice to the poor as well as bridging the digital divide between the upper and lower classes. I see this mission as completely valid as the Bible exhorts us over and over to seek justice, do good, and free the oppressed. But, I have a few qualms with Andrew’s presentation. It was quite hard to fully trust and respect what he said since, as Maggie ardently pointed out, the statistics he was basing his ideas off of were his “own approximations from growing up in an urban context.” Kovach and Rosensteil would not be pleased.

Though Andrew’s lack of regard for facts as sacred was troubling, what he said about major news networks funneling into the same ownership made me nervous and demanded a bit of investigation.

Perhaps not so surprisingly, I had to do quite a bit of searching before finding that George Westinghouse and his companies, Westinghouse Electric, and General Electric are linked to both CBS Corporation and NBC (and Disney, but I don’t so much care about Disney since it isn’t providing me with news). This is something that I plan to check out in more depth when I have the time. But for now the following sights were helpful:

http://en.allexperts.com/e/w/we/westinghouse.htm

http://ketupa.net/westinghouse.htm

This linking of news stations ties into what Chomsky says by, “the core of domination is the private control of resources—an attack on the fundamental structure of the state of capitalism.” If capitalism suffers, must democracy suffer with it? And where does journalism fall into all of this as R&K state repeatedly that independent journalism is what greases the gears of democracy and keeps it running smoothly.

I feel alerted. Andrew claims that nearly 90% of the media is controlled by white people. Chomsky talks about the media (aka white people) as controlling the political process. He then alludes to the idea that the elites keep the underclass, the underclass. Frankly, I’m not sure what to do with all of this information. While I think that America has some serious issues, my friends Andrew and Chomsky have some serious agendas.

I have little space to discuss “The Story Behind the Story,” but I think I’ve developed a new appreciation for REAL investigative journalism and hopefully, as Bowden pointes out, the distinction between disinterested reporting and hit-jobbery.

E of J response 5&6

2009-09-20T14:21:00.000-07:00

About two years, a whole lot of writing, reading, and discussing of that writing exists between the first time that I read E of J and now. Rereading has been incredibly insightful as I now have some personal context from which to contemplate. I've also been reminded of classroom discussions and thoughts that Jo threw out at us. She talked a lot about journalism needing Christians because we have an obligation to, and understanding of, the ultimate truth. I sort of got the concept then but as I read K&R now, I’m realizing how the quality of journalism on every level has to do with the ethicality, perceived responsibility and standards that the journalist holds for him or herself. K&R pose some questions for us to check ourselves with, “Does the work proceed from a respect for an adherence to the principles of truthfulness, an allegiance to citizens and community at large, and informing rather than manipulating” (98). All of the questions relate to our ability to disengage from our perception of reality, which I know I can’t do on my own. I’m glad that my real responsibility is to something higher than any citizen.

In thinking about who my responsibility is to and the kingdom purpose behind journalism, I feel divided on my thoughts about “muckrakers.” I understand that journalisms “watchdog” role is largely responsible for keeping democracy, democracy. At the same time I cringe when political figures lives are exposed on my TV set. Just this morning the top story was about John Edwards extra-marital affairs. Yes, this story speaks to Edwards poor character, as it did to Clinton and Spitzer’s, but there’s something about the celebrity/tabloid feel of the stories that makes me think twice about their revelation and my necessity as a citizen to know them.

Finally, some R&K food for thought in thinking story; “Exposing what is readily understood or simply common sense belittles investigative journalism.” Moral of the story, don’t turn watchdogism into a form of amusement (122).

WCVB Boston Channel 5

2009-09-18T19:36:00.000-07:00

Somewhere along my high school career I developed an addiction to morning sessions of coffee, pb&j, and most importantly . . . the news. I don’t even care which station. Usually I flip between all of the networks to whichever one isn’t showing commercials. So you can imagine my excitement when we walked past Janet Wu on our way into channel 5 this week.

Even though the Pats were playing and it was a “quiet” night I could feel the energy and enthusiasm that the casters and crews had for their work. It was contagious. As I looked and listened I kept thinking—there’s no way that this is just a job to any of these people. Certainly not to our tour guide Pam Cross. She’s been with channel 5 since 1993 and as well as anchoring, she’s a general assignment reporter. I was unaware that anchors can and do double as reporters. I wanted to ask Pam what quality she possesses that’s carried her to success in the news industry, but after hearing a bit of her history I think I know the answer. It has to do with Cage’s rule number 7: “The only rule is work. If you work it will lead to something. It’s the people who do all of the work all of the time who eventually catch on to things.”

Pam showed us a segment on the underground gun trade in Mass. In my option, it’s some incredible investigating. I’d like to further discuss the obligation of a journalist. E of J says protect your source, always. I have a hard time with this. Check out the reporting: http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/15189840/detail.html

Walking through the Chronicle set was a bit surreal as the voice of Mary Richardson and those trumpets were very familiar sounds in my home growing up. She’s been hosting since ’84 and Chronicle is the nation’s longest running locally produced nightly newsmagazine. A fun fact: Richardson’s husband, Stan Leven is the senior producer of Chronicle. I want to know, what about Chronicle has helped it withstand the test of time? All I know is, it’s supplied me with a well of New England knowledge and a warm fuzzy feeling that equates slowing down and the end of the day. Thank you, channel 5.

The Journalism Trail

2009-09-18T12:15:00.000-07:00

I have to begin by noting that I feel quite proud to be a native of the state where the first newspapers in North America were published. Though a question that I began thinking about on the trail was, why did so many of them fail so quickly? As I’ve been reviewing the map and paper blurbs it seems that there is a link between the papers lacking in their pursuit of “the Elements” and the papers quick failure. For example, The New England Courant, featuring more essays than news and occasionally being published by a teenager, only lasted five years. The Boston Gazette, on the other hand, was published by authority and strongly favored independence and lasted for 112 years. It’s hard to make a sweeping judgment about any of the papers’ qualities from such a short blurb about each but I’d be interested to look for the links between duration and a lack of what Rosensteil and Kovach have idealized in E of J.

After reviewing the papers, the one I’d choose to work for would have to be “The Liberator.” While I deliberated for quite a while over whether a mission within a paper can ever be a good thing, I’ve decided that there’s no way a mission to set people free can be bad. It seems to be a Biblical concept. I’d like to know what others have to say. Garrisons quote on the matter is one worthy of eating up a few more of my 300 words, “I will be as harsh as truth, and as uncompromising as justice. On this subject I do not wish to think, or to speak, or write, with moderation.”

The fun fact that I most appreciated about the trail was the cricket/grasshopper (is there a difference?) sitting on top of Faneuil Hall that for some meant death. I knew that my Massachusetts ancestors were die-hards but that’s quite an interesting technique for determining loyalty.

E of J response 3&4

2009-09-18T12:11:00.000-07:00

I see why it is completely essential to the character of journalism for journalists to be loyal to the citizens above anything else. I also see why this loyalty is so difficult to carry out and why journalists (and editors) have failed despite their best attempts. Nick Clooney says he “works for the people who turn on the television.” The problem, in my opinion, is that he doesn’t personally know those people . It’s so much easier to be loyal to those who hold us accountable daily—parents, bosses, teachers. When a journalist is hard at work for the citizen it’s difficult to keep expectations in mind because there isn’t an individual connection in mind.

Chapter three deals with the conflicting interests of journalism and business. A quote that speaks well to the issue, “putting audience ahead of political and immediate financial interests was the best of all long-term financial strategies” (53). I’m sure that editors and journalists are beckoned by the call of smart business transactions daily, but there is encouragement in knowing that the publications with integrity are usually the ones that last.

It’s interesting that the core concepts of verification also happen to be core ideas for how I try to relate to others—don’t add to what didn’t happen, don’t deceive, be transparent, rely on your own work, have humility. The tangibility of these ideals is helpful because it give me a sort of medium by which to check myself. It’s relieving to know that though I the journalist will never be objective, my method can come close to objectivity.

I love that R+K ended the chapter on verification with the Porter/Simon story. It shows how verification can be the difference between life and death and is important! The pressure to get stories turned around quickly is always present but the ramifications of assuming and getting it wrong are even more pressing, in my opinion.

E of J response 1&2

2009-09-18T12:09:00.000-07:00

Rosensteil and Kovach begin by introducing the need to know as being something intrinsic. Initially I found this odd because “knowing” doesn’t seem to fit with some of the other basic needs such as food or love or security. But in later pages they explore the idea of knowing as closely linked with security, making knowledge a sort of protection mechanism. I like this idea and I like that it gives me perspective on just how important and essential the role of a journalist is to society and democracy. It also gives encouragement to media folk who are fearful of what will happen to the face of the news. Though the medium of news is ever changing the need to know, and thus the industry, remains.

In chapter 1 the Theory of the Interlocking Public made me think about the importance of a journalist being a well-versed individual. I realize that larger papers have religion reporters and sports writers but writers in a paper like the Salem News are all across the boards as far as story genres go. Perhaps even harder than the journalists’ job is the editors’ who has to assign stories that create a paper which can engage the entire population.

Chapter three opens the “truth” can of worms. What a difficult pursuit! I liked this quote, “It is no longer enough to report the fact truthfully. It is now necessary to report the truth about the fact” (p 43). It shows that there is more than one layer to truth . . . sometimes two . . . sometimes five. The whole chapter resounds our human lack of ability to do anything perfectly despite our most earnest attempts. But despite that there’s grace—“People can tell when someone has come closer to getting it right, when the sourcing is authoritative, when the research is exhaustive, when the method is transparent” (p 45).